User talk:Korruski

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, then place {{Talkback|Korruski}} on your talk. Please click here to leave me a new message.

Question: why is Category:Wikipedians in the Article Rescue Squadron deserving of a Wikipedia entry when it is simply a directory of people (Wikipedia:DIRECTORY) which falls under Wikipedia:Not, which is exactly why you want the List of Notable Plot Twists deleted? Object404 (talk) 16:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Hey. Am attempting to fix the article List of spoilers. It is an attempt to list the most notable and significant spoilers in literature, media & history. Such an article needs existence and is not simply a random collection/directory of links and trivia. http://www.object404.com (talk) 14:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you deleting it just because you want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marioluigi98 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I beg your pardon? I don't fully understand what you are saying, but in fact I am not deleting it, I am merely proposing it for speedy deletion because it does not appear to be notable. --Korruski (talk) 21:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean because all I want to do is have the album on wiki for information explain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marioluigi98 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read this page in particular before creating new articles. --Korruski (talk) 21:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So your deleting it Just because it doesn't have a recording year why did't you ask me to do that or do it your self. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marioluigi98 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... no. I nominated it for speedy deletion because it does not assert the notability of the album. --Korruski (talk) 21:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I What know if I can still make that same page again And wait did you make a proposel to delete it.

Can you demonstrate why the album is notable? Has it had significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? If not, I suggest you don't re-create the page. --Korruski (talk) 22:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you previously chastised[1] him on it, I thought you might want to know that object404 is quite explicitly canvassing on reddit[2]. He seems to be pretty slow on the uptake regarding Wikipedia's rules and norms, so I'm not quite sure how to deal with his continued somewhat-disruptive behaviour. --Gmaxwell (talk) 23:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. Agreed, it's been pretty frustrating watching the way the 'List of spoilers' article has been edited, quite apart from the inherent problems with the article. However, for the time being it seems to have been dealt with, so let's hope object404 is learning how to work with Wikipedia. If not, I'm not certain myself of the processes for dealing with disruptive users, so might need to ask for some help there. --Korruski (talk) 08:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not bite the newcomers , give them some time..--Shlok 11:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachinvenga (talk • contribs)

If you remove a Speedy Deletion tag, please do not forget to edit the talk page to explain how you intend to improve the article. Thanks! --Korruski (talk) 11:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armageddon theology WritersCramp (talk) 13:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please be very careful when adding deletion tags on articles. You added one to the above mentioned article, based on old information. You added a speedy delete above the AfD tag, where there is current discussion. The editor whose request you read, has been indef blocked for disruptive editing and blanking the AfD page, among other things. You kinda came in during the middle of the discussion and responded to an old message. There are additional issues at Rise above the silver and gold. When an article is already going through a deletion process, with obvious tags on the article, please don't complicate things further by adding more tags and initiating additional processes. Thanks. Cindamuse (talk) 09:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message, but I'm afraid I don't understand what you're objecting to. Other 'additional issues' at another article are not relevant here. The message was not 'old' - it was (and is) the latest message on that discussion bar 2 unrelated comment responses further up, and it was the creator and main editor specifically requesting deletion. Since he didn't appear to know how to do this, it seemed more useful to place the tag on his behalf than to explain to him how to do it. The tag is entirely appropriate in this situation, as far as I am aware, and an Admin appears to be happy with my decision as they have deleted the page. If they had felt that the tag was inappropriate, they were welcome to refuse the deletion request and remove it. Finally, I did not 'come in during the middle'. I commented on the Rise above the silver and gold talk page early on and have been watching both pages and both AfDs since then. I'm genuinely confused as to why my good-faith action is being objected to, and would be grateful for a fuller explanation. --Korruski (talk) 09:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I am completely assuming good faith here. No harm; no foul. Really. ; ) The editor has commented on several other pages and has alternately requested to both keep and delete. Some of the other comments posted by others were actually her words, but we were trying to help her out by bringing her comments to the AfD. She deleted earlier comments and refactored others, some of which you probably never saw. She blanked the AfD, changed words on the edits of others, and made legal threats. She had earlier requested to have the article deleted as the author and was denied. She then began trying to argue to save the article. She alternately wanted to either keep the article or delete it, she was blocked. A few of us believe that she may request an unblock and come back in an effort to again try to save the article. Out of respect, we thought it best to let the AfD run its course. Then you came into the picture, saw an older request for deletion and responded to it accordingly. Note that she had made more recent requests to save the article on the talk pages of others, as well as her own. I honestly doubt that the admin reviewed the information fully. I noticed immediately when you added the speedy tag and I went to the article to remove the tag. I went first to review the talk page, returned to the article and the admin had deleted the article within a moment's time. There was no way possible for the admin to review the discussion or what was fully taking place. S/he apparently just saw the author delete request, possibly assumed you were the author and deleted accordingly. When the article is going through an AfD discussion, there is no need to then go and add a speedy delete tag. There was just a discombobulated cycle of misinformation all the way around. Again, no harm; no foul. I completely believe that your edits were made in good faith, in attempts to help the editor. That's a commendable trait. It's all good. I just hope she doesn't come back now, because it probably won't be pleasant. Cindamuse (talk) 10:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also note that the db-g7 author request for deletion can only be honored, when they are the only substantial editor to both the article and the talk page. This wasn't the case with this article. Cindamuse (talk) 10:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair enough. Apologies if I got in the way - was genuinely trying to help the editor, but wasn't aware that there was other discussion on talk pages, etc. I kind of assumed that if I put the tag on, then the admin would make the right decision based on the facts. I'm pretty sure they did at least review the AfD as it's mentioned in the deletion summary, but they probably weren't in full posession of all the facts either.

So, yeah, apologies again, but hopefully it's better off just being deleted early. --Korruski (talk) 10:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's all good. Also wanted you to know that after the editor posted that request that you responded to, she then began posting comments above, requesting to keep. The keep request directly above her comment, was her earlier request to keep. It just became very confusing. Again, I tried to help her on her talk page, on my talk page, and offering direction in the AfD, but she wasn't hearing it. Her last comments were legal threats when she was blocked. There is also an SPI, that will hopefully not be needed now that she is blocked, but others have their doubts. Cindamuse (talk) 10:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

During the AfD discussion you kindly offered to look at suggested edits to make the article more balanced if it was kept (which it was). My suggested edits are located [HERE] Thank you for at least taking a look. Austex • Talk 15:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to take a look and see what I can do. It may be a day or two before I can give it my full attention, however. --Korruski^Talk 15:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It's been quite awhile already. So a few days won't hurt. Thanks Austex • Talk 20:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you've commented on a similar discussion earlier, I hope you would participate in this AfD and comment on the matter. Thank you. ANGCHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 06:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you intended to nominate Koji Kamoji for deletion, but didn't actually create an AfD. Because you use Twinkle it should be easy to do: just go to the Koji Kamoji page, and click [xfd] on the Twinkle topbar, and you should see a dialog box asking you to type out a deletion rationale such as the other ones you see on this page. Then you can hit Submit and it will do the rest of the steps by itself.—Soap— 23:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Think my browser crashed halfway through and Twinkle didn't finish all the tasks. --Korruski^Talk 08:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Korruski

This is Chris Porter. Happy to be open to the joys of wikipedia but try to keep your information current. No good you follow in the footsteps of many who choose to change history by including their version.

Talk about past stuff but include current conservation work as well. Hope to see you at the Beyond Aquariums, Beyond Activism conference where the two sides finally come together and talk openly and with FACTS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NoteMyVote (talk • contribs)

Email via free the pod as have no idea where the TALK page of wikipedia is. ----

I'm sorry, I really don't know what you are talking about. Can you clarify?--Korruski^Talk 10:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I think I see what you are referring to. I tried to write my additions to the article in a balanced way, but bear in mind that a biography must inevitably include past as well as current information. --Korruski^Talk 14:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Korruski one more time... yes a biography must include the past but must include ALL the past.

There is no mention that Earth Island and Dave Phillips supported Free The Pod and put the PAST BEHIND. And we are working cooperatively for the release of the rescued Orca in Holland.

I AM NO LONGER SELLING OR HAVE DOLPHINS.

You use CDNN as a source?? There are many, many references in the press and media that tell the WHOLE story not the cut and paste job that you did which looks typical activist.

I am fair game for telling my story... but do it right. Your facts are also wrong regarding my history in the industry and time in it. I have had featured documentaries telling the story. You want to take the time to write about me... great but do it complete.

Happy to include the past stuff. You have not even scratched the surface of the articles and information on this that others have written about by sitting down and interviewing me for interviews, documentaries and television shows.

Use wikipedia as it was meant to be. Interview me, do the whole research.

Use your real name as well. This whole story I have watched people criticize and write through their computer, hiding behind walls of fire and stone. Put your points about you as well and why you are citing them. You want to be open and transparent about me GREAT I am an open book, let us see your book now.—Preceding unsigned comment added by NoteMyVote (talk • contribs)

Hi Chris. Thanks for your comments. I am not a typical activist (or even an activist at all) I simply wished to improve upon an article which seemed to me to lack a balanced point of view. I used the best sources I could find, including respected newspapers, and I tried to cover your whole career including the Free the Pod campaign. Since then, the article has been improved by different editors, and some of my additions have been removed, while others have stayed. That is how Wikipedia works - not by me needing to sit down and interview you, much as I think that would be interesting and enjoyable.

I'm afraid I find your tone and manner of dealing with me a little confrontational, and I would prefer you to address any comments you have about the article here on the article talk-page, rather than to me personally on my talk page. Thanks.--Korruski^Talk 15:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please excuse the intrusion, but I have made a couple of changes to your nascent Edgar Peacock article. I have changed one category. Also, I have assumed that you do not want the article to appear in the main space until it is ready, so I have commented out all the categories; you can easily remove the comment markers when your article is ready for the main space. Happy editing. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 16:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very many thanks!--Korruski^Talk 21:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Reggaeton De Markesina Fuel line Elvis Has Left the Building (film) Police Complaints Board Battle of Kesselsdorf Jackie Ashley Hector Zagal Munchies (confectionery) Martin Kettle Battle of Velletri (1744) Bhagalpur district Victor Zorza Joel Wachs Cherry Logan Emerson (engineer) Varaire Guelph Police Service Independent Police Conduct Authority Sutton Coldfield Observer José Woldenberg

Cleanup IBooks Evangelicalism Aero (chocolate) Merge Daryl Androphilia and gynephilia Libertarianism in the United States Add Sources Grupo Reforma Dorothy Savile, Viscountess Halifax Global Crop Diversity Trust Wikify EgyptAir Flight 763 Victor Keegan Saeed Kamali Dehghan Expand Traffic Homicide Investigator Voletta Wallace Vengeance Is Mine!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 16:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you change the title of a thread, it's best to add an anchor so that inbound links to the section end up in the right place. Just put {{anchor|oldtitle}} immediately under the new title.  pablo 12:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're absolutely right. It hadn't even occured to me, to be honest, but I'll know for next time. Thanks for doing it for me on this occasion.--Korruski^Talk 13:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. As you just participated in discussions on a closely related topic (also a current AfD re a Jewish list), which may raise some of the same issues, I'm simply mentioning that the following are currently ongoing: AfDs re lists of Jewish Nobel laureates, entertainers, inventors, actors, cartoonists, and heavy metal musicians. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I need to get User:Korruski/The Correspondents (band) turned into an article ASAP. I hope you don't mind me updating the page and moving it into mainspace when appropriate? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey - no, of course not, I'd be delighted. I'm afraid I never got very far with it, as I was struggling with reliable sources, but I'd love to see it turned into a live article.--Korruski^Talk 14:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Turned into one! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This and related reversions of this and related removals is because the IP is a blocked as belonging to a long-term abusive sock-drawer. Crappy edit-summary for removal (or he should have struck and left a note about it instead of removing), but removal still looks reasonable to me. DMacks (talk) 12:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. I've reverted the whole lot of them already (there were more than the two I first spotted), which was boring and possibly unecessary. But the problem is that in the absence of an edit summary, it's impossible for an uninvolved editor to know what is going on, so it's bound to cause problems.

If the comments are to be removed, they are much better off being struck through with an explanation, which is more usual. However, as there were not multiple sock-puppet comments on any of these AfDs, I would argue that even striking through the comments is questionable. Being a sock-puppet doesn't necessarily invalidate your comment. I understand the reason for the removal, but I think it's pretty dubious practice. Thanks for the info, anyway.--Korruski^Talk 12:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an observer, the user was evading an indef block and has repeatedly done so. In extreme cases (like this where the user constently block evades) an WP:INDEF blocked user judged irredeemable would effectively make the uncooperative editor banned by the community. and banning policy states their edits may be reverted without any further reason. Of course an edit summary would be ideal but when reverting a host of edits by a user do you expect each one to be painstakingly undone with an edit summary when they could be (much more quickly) rolled back. You should have really waited for a response or, if not, looked into the reverted users history before undoing all those. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, crappy note for each reversion, apologies, but the IP-hopping indefinitely blocked sockpuppeteer (User:Tennis expert) wastes enough useful time (and this sort of thing is exactly what it would enjoy), so I'm not prepared to waste any more on it. To prevent an indefinitely blocked editor from participating in AFDs is perfectly acceptable, in my opinion, so, if you don't object, I'll go back and undo your reversions with a suitable edit summary. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object. My personal view is that since the comments are not disruptive in themselves, they should just be struck through, but I think policy contradicts me on that one, so I'm not going to argue about it. Apologies for not waiting for an explanation on this which would, perhaps, have saved us both some time.--Korruski^Talk 13:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While the comments may not have been disruptive, an indefinitely blocked editor should not be abllowed to participate in anything by evading the said block. If User:Tennis expert wants back in, he needs to appeal to Arbcom, not go around editing using multiple IPs. No worries on the undos, I had a spare few moments, hopefully my edit summary is less crappy this time round! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback can be used to revert vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback may be removed at any time.

If you do not want rollback, then contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some information on how to use rollback, you can view this page. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, just leave me a message on my talk page if you have any questions. Happy editing! Malinaccier (talk) 18:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've just reviewed your DYK hook for this article, and it looks good! I just wanted to let you know (in case you were unaware) that File:HunterPortrait.jpg, which appears in the article, is up for speedy deletion. This is because you have (correctly) used the {{PD-art-life-70}} template, but have not provided information about who the artist was, and when they died. It should just be a matter of adding in that information. Also, in the future you may want to add such public domain images to the Wikimedia Commons, which allows them to be used by all the Wikimedia projects. Thanks!  -- Lear's Fool 05:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm very grateful both for reviewing the DYK, and for the heads-up about deletion. It seems noone thought to notify me.--Korruski^Talk 11:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's pretty poor. The bot has actually been blocked for malfunctioning; I'm not entirely sure why, but perhaps this has something to do with it.  -- Lear's Fool 12:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was blocked for fouling up user talk pages containing Unicode characters. See here, edits on 10 December 2010 between 08:05 and 21:07, although only about half exhibit the problem. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:HunterPortrait.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 12:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. I have now added the source. I thought that the copyright status was clear because I have specified that the original artist died over 70 years ago, and my understanding was that a photo of a painting cannot have an independent copyright. All the checks I have done seem to back that up. Am I mistaken? If so, I can remove the image immediately, as it was an honest mistake.--Korruski^Talk 12:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 14 December 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article George Leslie Hunter, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 07:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YAY! :D--Korruski^Talk 09:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 20 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Quo Vadis (restaurant), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Karl Marx wrote his Das Kapital while living in the building now occupied by Soho restaurant Quo Vadis? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've reviewed Leslie Hunter against the GA criteria and have left a few comments for you to address in the next seven or so days. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 22:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you didn't even need seven hours, did you? A GA pass; nice work. Bencherlite^Talk 23:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you aren't familiar with it. It's the fourth revert that constitutes a violation, not the third. Please retract and/or strike your accusation on WP:AN/I. Yworo (talk) 23:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I will, actually. Sorry.--Korruski^Talk 23:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

False accusations do not become you. They only make you look foolish. Yworo (talk) 23:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Ok, thanks for letting me know, I shall try to avoid making any false accusations.--Korruski^Talk 23:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, and don't trip over any Monoliths in the park on your way home. Yworo (talk) 23:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Better read it one more time:

1. Addition of a hoax, TMA-0, is vandalism and reverting vandalism is exempt from 3RR.
2. A unbroken series of edits counts a single edit for the purposes of 3RR.

Now lay the eff off me, it's none of your bloody business. Yworo (talk) 23:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I now perceive you as engaging in deliberate harassment and baiting on WP:AN/I. Please stop immediately. Yworo (talk) 23:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I may not be around to see if Yworo cause some issue to Korruski, so I just want to testify right now that the latter only tried to act as a mediator between us in a conflict.

I've been engaged in an edit war with Yworo about a line that got deleted a couple weeks ago due to a lack of source. Logically, I then added it back with a source, but Yworo started to revert it discriminatively for no reason, and to threat me on my discussion page. I then reported him on the admin incident board (wrongly, he acted like an admin on my discussion page, but he's not). The report and the discussion that followed can be find here. It appear to me that Yworo is both a paranoid and imposing his point of view, while constantly bringing up the WP rules to support his actions, whatever they are...

Please feel free to check the history of my IP for more material about all this. 93.19.187.248 (talk) 00:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Create an account and join the community, 93.19.187.248. Hmmm... Yworo (talk) 00:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's my choice not to. I had one years ago, and I don't want one anymore, since I hate being involved in such stupid conflicts and being part of a community. I like being anonymous, since people can only judge me on what I'm writing, not on a simple name on which people will stick all their fantasies. It's a harder life as a WP editor, since when you enter a conflict you have less weight than a registered user, but I deal with it. 93.19.187.248 (talk) 00:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really, what was your user name? Most IP address who make that statement are banned users. Are you a banned user? Easy to disprove by letting us know your previous user name. Yworo (talk) 00:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it was a banning issue, I could use multiple accounts with multiples proxies to avoid it. Or just reboot and set up my modem correctly so that the static IP is changed. Or change my ISP, something I've done when I moved from my previous apartment. So, actually, I just gave up my account years ago, for the reasons I exposed, and for the very same reasons, my previous name is none of your business.

Also, if you really plan to be an admin someday as explained on your profile, you seriously should consider changing your behaviour. Because admins don't act the way you do.

Anyway, I didn't write on here to debate with you and pollute Korruski's discussion page. Keep your paranoid suspicions for yourself, you fucking maniac. I'm out of this, feel free to continue your delirium alone. 93.19.187.248 (talk) 00:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Korruski, welcome to Sesame Street! Very little drama there, I promise. ;) I appreciate the GA review. No, I didn't submit its nomination, but I did write it. I've been busy with other articles and RL, so it hasn't been a priority for me, but that has now changed. I anticipate beginning to address your comments this very evening, and look forward to it. Thanks. Christine (talk) 04:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

K, saw your note on my talk page. No worries; there are no deadlines in WP, as they say. Take your time! Hope you had a nice trip, and talk at ya later. Christine (talk) 12:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pass! I'm very pleased. Also, thanks for your assistance in improving this article, and for all your great feedback and suggestions. Happy Mardi Gras! ;) Christine (talk) 12:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm a Belgian citizen and I found you in the "Artist" discussion page, I would like to ask you some help concerning a wikipedia article about the artist ben heine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ben_Heine. Please let me know how I can do to improve this article or to have someone do it as I really find it difficult to edit stuff properly on Wikipedia, I can't do it myself unfortunately... (and each time I tried to improve it in a neutral way, someone removed what I added) --Caring-writer (talk) 22:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been following Ben Heine's work for many years, may I mention that the current article is a text that appeared on Wikipedia in 2006 and that reflects what he did in that time only. He has totally changed and evolved. He has made many more things since then. He is a globally appreciated artist and he needs a better bio. There aren't so many criticisms about him. The article isn't fair, it REALLY NEEDS MANY UPDATES and contains strong mistakes defamation against the artist. Many well known national newspapers and magazines have talked about him and his work recently (see a non exhaustive list here below), none of them is even mentioned in the current article. He has stopped making political art since more than 2 years. Please just consider these publications, most of them are a few days/weeks old only... Daily Mail, The Telegraph, El Pais, Repubblica, De Standaard... These AREN'T blogs!!! These are national papers read by millions of people.

Please have a look to the following list of errors in the current article (which I detailed here below, and which I'll mention to several other admins/contributors if needed and if not taken into account).

List of important errors in the current article about Ben Heine:

1) Ben isn't a political artist anymore, it's true he used to make political art accusing Israel of "crimes against humanity", but he stopped making such illustrations in 2009 and wrote an "[[open letter to the Jewish Community]]" in December 2010 apologizing about his past behavior (saying it was the influences of his studies in Journalism. Parts of his final assignment talked about the "limits of freedom of expression in cartoons"). In this letter, he also firmly condemned the infamous Iranian Holocaust cartoon contest and said he was feeling deeply guilty about it. Here is the letter translated in English (Google translator). Ben doesn't deny the Holocaust, he visited Auschwitz Birkenau and feels sincerely sorry about the past suffering of the Jewish community.

2) Ben doesn't contribute to these websites anymore: DonQuichotte, MWC News, Rebelion, Tlaxcala, Irancartoon, Syriacartoon, Arabcartoon, Persiancartoon, Karikaturevi, Azercartoon, Dessin d'humour, National Caricaturist Network (Ben has explicitly asked these sites to remove all his illustrations from their platforms)

3) Ben doesn't collaborate with "La Libre Belgique" Anymore. Only 4 or 5 of his old cartoons have been published in this newspaper (in 2006 and 2007).

4) Pencil Vs Camera is not just a "little detail" in his biography, it is a creative and original series that has generated some huge reactions on the web and in the written press (see a non exhaustive list below). It is such an innovation that several TV channels around the world have also talked about it: Globo - Brazil, TV Brussel - Belgium, and many others). Same for "Digital Circlism"...

5) "Pere Ubu" (one of the main newspapers that clearly accused Heine in Belgium has removed the accusation from their site

6) Most of the links in the "notes" section (expecially the url's linking to images on Ben's blog) do not work...

7) Ben removed from his sites (blog, flickr, Deviantart and official site) all his cartoons accusing Israel or any Israeli person (Avigdor Lieberman...).

8) He didn't participate "recently" to the Kruger Workshop. This event happened in 2006!

So, I really hope you'll aknowledge that 90% of the article is based on inaccurate facts... I would like to see a real neutral article about that artist.

List of recent notable publications with Ben Heine works and biography:

WEB:

- DAILY MAIL (UK - February 2011) - EL PAIS (Spain - February 2011) - THE TELEGRAPH (UK - February 2011) - NEWSLITE (UK : February 2011) - BBC Brazil (Brazil - February 2011) - LA REPUBBLICA (Italy - February 2011) - TV BRUSSEL (Belgium - January 2011) - CNN Turk (Turkey - February 2011) - POP PHOTOGRAPHY: (USA - January 2011) - SHORT NEWS (Germany - February 2011) - ESTADAO (Brazil - January 2011) - HET NIEUWSBLAD (Belgium - February 2011) - DE STANDAARD (Belgium - February 2011) - OBVIOUS MAG (Spain - January 2011) - WEBOVINY (Slovakia - January 2011) - ARTE SPAIN (Spain - January 2011) - Accessible Art Fair (Belgium - 2010) - TrendsNow (France- February 2011) - CHINA DAILY (China - 2010) - DUSHI (China - january 2011) - ABDUZEEDO (Brazil - 2010) - Other publications in 2010

PRINT:

- Pop Photography (USA - January 2011) - Het Nieuwsblad - 1 (Belgium - 2011) - Het Nieuwsblad - 2 (Belgium - 2010) - Ca m'intéresse (France - 2010) - Daily Mirror (Great Britain - 2010) - Bookedi (South Korea - 2010) - Digital Artist 1 - 2 - 3 (China - 2010) - Belgian Embassy in London (February 2011) - Photoeidolo (Greece - 2011) - Šeimininkė (Lithuania - 2010) - View Mag (Germany - 2010) - Shambala Sun (Canada - 2010) - Imagine Demain le Monde (Belgium - 2009) - La Libre Belgique 1 2 (Belgium - 2009) - Moonwalk Through Art (The Netherlands - 2009) - Rolling Stone (USA - 2008) - 3e Millénaire (France - 2011)

My suggestions for a new neutral article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ben_Heine#Article_about_Ben_Heine_needs_many_updates_and_corrections_.28please_read.29 (it would be good to add some of the above references, feel free to add more)

Caring-writer (talk) 22:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Korruski, and apologies for the delay in replying,
I was following up on this WP:ANI incident report. WP:TWINKLE was having one of its ramdom down-times, but unfortunately its the only automated editing tool available for my OS and browser I have the smarts (or lack thereof) to drive. I had to go back to using basic WP:ROLLBACK, so no edit summaries. If you think I've misused my rollback privileges, please do report it.
Apologies again, --Shirt58 (talk) 09:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pursuing the task force idea ... would you be interested in participating, and if so, would it be possible for you to round up some people who share your views and keep in touch with them as the task force makes recommendations? - Dank (push to talk) 20:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be delighted to participate, many thanks for thinking of me. I'm less sure about speaking for anyone else though - I think everyone's views about RFA are so complicated (my own included...) that I would be hard pressed to know exactly who does or doesn't share my views, unfortunately.--Korruski^Talk 22:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's true. In that case, as we proceed, be on the lookout to see if there's a way to make the process go more smoothly by talking in groups with like-minded WPians. - Dank (push to talk) 22:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per your request to stay notified of current developments, see Eureka! We're all morons. - Dank (push to talk) 21:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Cad Cutter.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Racconish ^Tk 17:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Archives of American Art Wikimedia Partnership - We need you!

Hi! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the Smithsonian Archives of American Art and I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about art to participate in furthering art coverage on Wikipedia. I am planning contests and projects that will allow you access, no matter where you live, to the world's largest collection of archives related to American art. Please sign up to participate here, and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 00:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:AhoyCentre.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. IngerAlHaosului (talk) 12:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter Volume I, Issue III February 2012 Front cover | Feature | News and announcements | Humor | Want ads To contribute to the next newsletter, please visit the Newsletter draft page. ARS Members automatically receive this newsletter. To opt out, please remove your name from the recipients list.

Dear Korruski,

I started the page for this ship as it has played a large role in the early settlement of Australia.

I would like to add positively to the page. Can you assist me with improving the page?

DJFryzy (talk) 09:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll take a look when I get a chance. In the meantime, one thing to do would be to look for some good quality newspaper or academic articles about the ship as those help to establish notability. From a quick Google search it seems there's a lot of material, so it shouldn't be too hard to find stuff.--Korruski^Talk 09:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't change someone's edits until you have looked at the page more thoroughly or can clearly see something wrong; impulsive reverts aren't welcomed here. I was merely fixing a typo. Thanks, --71.179.5.49 (talk) 16:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then you need to say so in the edit summary. Small changes to dates etc is a common form of vandalism. As I said in my edit summary.--Korruski^Talk 16:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. But as I said before- look through pages more thoroughly next time before you make any pointless reverts. Thanks for the summary reminder, though. --71.179.5.49 (talk) 16:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Cad and the Dandy.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 12:17, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on The Correspondents (band) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. The Dissident Aggressor 20:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If a speedy deletion tag is removed without explanation by someone other than the initial contributor, it can still be reverted, rather than PROD, a valid reason for the removal of the template must still be given regardless of who removes it. I usually revert the action and then leave the offender the {{uw-tdel1|article name}} template (for unexplained removal of maintenance templates), rather than the speedy tag removal template which is intended for the initial contributor. Cheers. -War wizard90 (talk) 00:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the info - it seemed crazy not to just re-tag that page for speedy deletion, but I'd always thought that someone removing the tag counted as contesting it even if they didn't give an explanation, so I wanted to err on the safe side. Really appreciate the heads-up though, I'll know for next time!--Korruski^Talk 09:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As war wizard says. Quite often the page creator will log out and remove the speedy tag while editing under their IP address. Such behaviour is easy to spot per WP:DUCK. As seen in Kankowitz 2sweg. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 09:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Korruski,

You have just reverted my addition of BTP in the article Police use of firearms in the United Kingdom. Please see this article from the BTP web site, which talks about the firearms officers they have had since 2012. And the Wiki articles British Transport Police#Post war and List of police firearms in the United Kingdom even mention what kind of weapons they have.

You seem to argue that the sentence should only mention forces where most of the officers are routinely armed, but the phrase "parts of British Transport Police" (i.e. the BTP firearms officers) definitely fits in with the end of the sentence ("are issued firearms as a matter of routine"), just as much as the mentioning that most of the MPS SO units are armed in the same sentence. One way to solve it would be to turn that one sentence into two: one about the forces where most officers are routinely armed, and another which mentions the armed MPS units, the BTP armed officers, and the armed officers all forces have in their ARVs.

Also, as you just pushed the revert button, you also reverted a grammar correction I did further down in the article. I had changed "Every force also has a Force firearms units, with armed response vehicles." to "Every force also has a firearms unit with armed response vehicles.", which is better English and more grammatically correct (although perhaps it should say "Every force also has firearms units with armed response vehicles."). Best regards, Thomas Blomberg (talk) 14:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your message. I accept that the BTP have firearms officers, but my argument (as you say) is that this paragraph is supposed to be about forces that are 'issued firearms as a matter of routine'. All other forces, including BTP, are surely covered by the final sentence: "Every force also has a Force firearms units, with armed response vehicles". The MPS possibly falls somewhere between the two because whole commands other than just ARVs are 'routinely' issued firearms - i.e. DPG, airport security.

Anyway I largely agree with your proposed solution in breaking this into two sentences to cover a) routinely armed forces, b) other forces which generally just have ARVs and some kind of specialist firearms capability. I'm not quite sure why either BTP or the MPS need to be discussed separately to other forces, although you could argue that the MPS is distinct for the reason above, and the BTP is 'maybe' distinct because it's not a home office force and because its armed officers do routine foot patrol. If that's the argument then I don't have a major issue with that.

Sincere apologies for accidentally reverting your other change - that was shoddy.--Korruski^Talk 08:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm the guy who's been handling the GAR page lately. Please address the structure issues in the article so I don't have to submit it to GAR. Specifically, single sentences, short paragraphs, and subsections consisting of short paragraphs. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - not sure what this is in reference to. Could you point me in the direction of the relevant GAR page, talk page thread, or wherever it is that these structural issues have been raised.--Korruski^Talk 13:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just answering the GAR request which has been on the article for the past year. The structural issues are bought up here by me. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 21:37, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the talk page - I responded in January and removed the tag from the Article page. I failed to notice that there was also a tag on the talk page, but I have now removed that one.--Korruski^Talk 10:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GAR request doesn't have an expiration, and is usually a request to be checked whether there are obvious issues against the GA criteria at the time it is answered. It is also usually removed by an uninvolved editor of the article. Anyways, just fix the structure. It's a simple rearrangement of the article. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 15:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Never said it did. But just because an article has once been edited by someone with a COI doesn't mean that it is forever tainted and, as the only issue highlighted at the time was a COI from months before which was already discussed and fixed, I removed the tag. In January. Sadly I missed the second tag on the talk page, so I removed it today. If you would like to re-instate them based on a different issue then fill your boots.--Korruski^Talk 15:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with the past issues or conflict of interest. It has issues with its current structure. It needs to be addressed. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 16:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So if this has nothing to do with the previous, unrelated and removed tag, then you have basically just shown up on my talk page telling me you don't like the structure of an article and that it 'needs fixing' or you'll take it to review? Weird. But anyway, I'm busy right now and I quite like the article the way it is. If you want to fix it be my guest, or if you'd prefer to take it to GAR then that is also a matter of total indifference to me.--16:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Korruski,

In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:HunterPortrait.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:28, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Korruski. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bbb23 (talk) 16:06, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]